Repository navigation
docs(vec): clarify into_boxed_slice allocation guarantee - #163882
Open
Walentalien wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Walentalien wants to merge 4 commits into
Walentalien wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
Collaborator
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust Project has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum (or someone else) to review your changes, you should hear from them (or someone else) within the next two weeks. Please see the contribution instructions and our LLM policy for more information. |
Walentalien
changed the title
Walentalien
force-pushed
the
fix-vec-into-boxed-slice-docs
branch
from
October 6, 2026 15:31
308f488 to
b457180
Compare
Walentalien
force-pushed
the
fix-vec-into-boxed-slice-docs
branch
from
October 6, 2026 15:41
b457180 to
2b7e7cd
Compare
Walentalien
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 6, 2026 16:30
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Signed-off-by: Walentalien <voliinyk@student.agh.edu.pl>
xizheyin
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2026
Signed-off-by: Walentalien <voliinyk@student.agh.edu.pl>
Mark-Simulacrum
requested changes
Oct 25, 2026
| /// Like [`Vec::into_boxed_slice`], this is in-place if `vec.capacity() == N` | ||
| /// and `vec.len() == N`. If the `vec.len() == N` but there is spare capacity, | ||
| /// the allocation will be either shrunk or reallocated, or deallocated if `N==0`. | ||
| /// Vectors of zero-sized types have no backing allocation to modify. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it makes sense to restate what into_boxed_slice's behavior is (especially not in this much detail). I would just refer to that.
cc #164258 which is also changing that language.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now just redirecting to into_boxed_slice for doc on behavior.
cc @xizheyin
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // note: test pulls in std, which causes errors here |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are these comments deleted?
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those comments used to explain the #[cfg(not(test))] attribute here.
But it's no longer there since this refactor
This is cleanup after refactor.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
Collaborator
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
Signed-off-by: user.email <valentynfyi@gmail.com>
Author
|
@rustbot ready |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)Important For more information how to resolve CI failures of this job, visit this link. |
Author
|
CI failure is being addressed in #164929 |
xizheyin
approved these changes
Oct 28, 2026
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
LLM usage disclosure:
LLMs used for research and review.
Fixes #125941
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
@Mark-Simulacrum reviewed #137546 but that PR was closed due to inactivity, that review was taken into account while working on this contribution.